One of the most exasperating things about BP and public forums is the layperson spouting off unqualified interpretations of law or legal principles based on what they have heard or believe.

That's the Pareto Principle. 

That is because profit = equity gain + net rental income.If you want too look at hypothetical situations, at least take into account basic principles of real estate ecomonics.

Take a look at the homes that have sold around you for top dollar, before taking on any additional cost (obviously rental & flip principles call for different trains of thought here)  If comps sold within the top 5% of your area are all selling with older cabinets, it's definitely a no-go regardless of investing philosophy. 

To me, it doesn't mean that you should be uncaring as a landlord, but in my book it's less about "morality" and more about "principle".

Typically, it notes the change in the principle balance, and new term/years.  

This would mean I come out of pocket zero and the cost of closing would be equitable to an all cash dealAssuming I carried the property for 6 months before being sold or refinanced, that's like 10k in debt service, however since you are paying principle, nearly half of that gets deducted from the original 100k  Making the loan payoff approx 97k vs 100k.   

The whole idea that you have to offset the tax cuts in order to be deficit neutral is hogwash and counter to basic economic principle's.

I have a house that does not cash flow but it is on a 15 year note and I make my money in principle paydown and depreciation at tax time...been doing it for 10 years.

Rich Dad Poor Dad had investing principles?!